Ten Ways to Improve Getting a Scientific Manuscript Accepted.

BACKGROUND: Scientific publication is the cornerstone to academic and private practice advancement in patient management and outcomes. Writing a manuscript requires a certain discipline and skill set that can be achieved with diligence and hard work. METHODS: Anecdotal and review. RESULTS: Several factors must be considered in scientific writing and journal manuscript submission and acceptance. Choosing where to submit the manuscript; understanding the instructions to authors; disclosing ethically; formatting correctly; never plagiarizing; supplying high quality appropriate images; creating meaningful tables; curating a pertinent but thorough bibliography; having valid, supported conclusions; and respecting timelines. CONCLUSION: A discussion of relevant components in manuscript writing and journal submission to improve your chances of acceptance.

Major mistakes in scientific medical writing based on manuscripts' reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Peer review is a crucial process in ensuring the quality and accuracy of scientific research. It allows experts in the field to assess manuscripts submitted for publication and provide feedback to authors to improve their work. AIM: To describe mistakes encountered while peer reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. METHOD: This was a bibliometric study of research manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" and reviewed during 2022. The data collected included the type of the manuscripts and the number of reviews conducted per manuscript. The study also identified variables related to writing mistakes encountered during the peer review process. RESULTS: A total of 155 manuscripts (68% original articles) were peer reviewed and 245 reviews were delivered, by two reviewers. Out of 62 mistakes detected, 21% concerned the results section. In 60% of the manuscripts, the keywords used were not MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. The introduction lacked in-text citations in 30% of the reviewed manuscripts, while the method section did not have a clear study framework (27%). The two major mistakes detected in the results section were the misuse of abbreviations in tables/figures, and the non-respect of the scientific nomenclature of tables/figures with respectively 39% and 19% of manuscripts. CONCLUSION: This study identified 62 mistakes while reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. Scholars can benefit from participation in scientific writing seminars and the use of a safety checklist for scientific medical writing to avoid basic mistakes.

Scholarly Publishing, Boundary Processes, and the Problem of Fake Peer Reviews.

Over the past decade, the phenomenon of "fake" peer reviews has caused growing consternation among scholarly publishers. Yet despite the significant behind-the-scenes impact that anxieties about fakery have had on peer review processes within scholarly journals, the phenomenon itself has been subject to little scholarly analysis. Rather than treating fake reviews as a straightforward descriptive category, in this article, we explore how the discourse on fake reviews emerged and why, and what it tells us about its seeming antithesis, "genuine" peer review. Our primary source of data are two influential adjudicators of scholarly publishing integrity that have been critical to the emergence of the concept of the fake review: Retraction Watch and the Committee on Publication Ethics. Via an analysis of their respective blog posts, Forum cases, presentations, and best practice guidance, we build a genealogy of the fake review discourse and highlight the variety of players involved in staking out the fake. We conclude that constant work is required to maintain clear lines of separation between genuine and fake reviews and highlight how the concept has served to reassert the boundaries between science and society in a context where they have increasingly been questioned.

Women's performance in conferences and their publications: a critical analysis

Introduction: Gender inequality occurs in all spheres of society, which is no different in the medical field. Abstract presentations in congress are the vanguard of scientific knowledge, an integral part of topic discussion, and, ideally, culminate in the publication of these works as complete manuscripts. Objective: The objective of this study is to evaluate the role played by women in the presentation of scientific works at the Brazilian Society of Coloproctology congress and in the works published from these presentations. Methods: The bibliometric evaluation of the presented abstracts in the editions from 2015 to 2018 of the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology was used, along with the works later published from these presentations. Gender identification data was extracted from the authors of the abstracts through their names and research for conference on the Lattes and Google Scholar platforms. The collected data was on the number of female participants and their order of authorship of abstracts and publications, evaluating possible changes when publication occurs. Results: A total of 1,336 abstracts were analyzed, with 91.6% of female authors. When publication occurs, women's presence dropped to 75.2% and suffered a change of order in the position of authorship to one of lesser relevance in 38.1%. Conclusion: Women's participation occurs in most abstracts. However, this proportion undergoes unfavorable changes when these works are published, either by changing the order of authorship, when women leave main positions and become coauthors, or are removed from the complete manuscript's publication. (AU)

How to Write an Effective Discussion.

Explaining the meaning of the results to the reader is the purpose of the discussion section of a research paper. There are elements of the discussion section that should be included and pitfalls that should be avoided. Always write the discussion section for the reader. Remember that the focus is to help the reader understand the study and that the focus should be on the study data.

Touching the (almost) untouchable: a minimally invasive workflow for microbiological and biomolecular analyses of cultural heritage objects.

Microbiological and biomolecular approaches to cultural heritage research have expanded the established research horizon from the prevalent focus on the cultural objects' conservation and human health protection to the relatively recent applications to provenance inquiry and assessment of environmental impacts in a global context of a changing climate. Standard microbiology and molecular biology methods developed for other materials, specimens, and contexts could, in principle, be applied to cultural heritage research. However, given certain characteristics common to several heritage objects-such as uniqueness, fragility, high value, and restricted access, tailored approaches are required. In addition, samples of heritage objects may yield low microbial biomass, rendering them highly susceptible to cross-contamination. Therefore, dedicated methodology addressing these limitations and operational hurdles is needed. Here, we review the main experimental challenges and propose a standardized workflow to study the microbiome of cultural heritage objects, illustrated by the exploration of bacterial taxa. The methodology was developed targeting the challenging side of the spectrum of cultural heritage objects, such as the delicate written record, while retaining flexibility to adapt and/or upscale it to heritage artifacts of a more robust constitution or larger dimensions. We hope this tailored review and workflow will facilitate the interdisciplinary inquiry and interactions among the cultural heritage research community.

Blinding Models for Scientific Peer-Review of Biomedical Research Proposals: A Systematic Review.

Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to estimate: (i) the overall effect of blinding models on bias; (ii) the effect of each blinding model; and (iii) the effect of un-blinding on reviewer's accountability in biomedical research proposals. Methods: Systematic review of prospective or retrospective comparative studies that evaluated two or more peer review blinding models for biomedical research proposals/funding applications and reported outcomes related to peer review efficiency. Results: Three studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review and assessed using the QualSyst tool by two authors. Conclusion: Our systematic review is the first to assess peer review blinding models in the context of funding. While only three studies were included, this highlighted the dire need for further RCTs that generate validated evidence. We also discussed multiple aspects of peer review, such as peer review in manuscripts vs proposals and peer review in other fields.

Discrepancies of abstracts presented in coloproctology congresses and later publish as full manuscripts: a Brazilian perspective

Introduction: The purpose of this retrospective bibliometric study was to assess the discrepancies between coloproctology surgery meeting abstracts and subsequent full-length manuscript publications. Methods: Abstracts presented at the Brazilian Congress of Coloproctology Surgery from 2015 to 2019 were compared with matching manuscript publications. Discrepancies between the abstract and therefore the subsequent manuscript were categorized as major (changes within the purpose, methods, study design, sample size, statistical analysis, results, and conclusions) and minor (changes within the title, authorship, and number of female authors) variations. Results: The conversion rate of abstracts in published manuscripts was 6,9% (121 abstracts). There were inconsistencies between the study title (66,1%), authorship (69,5%), study design (3,3%), sample size (39,2%), statistical analysis (24,8%), results (25,6%), and conclusions (12,4%) of manuscripts compared with their corresponding meeting abstracts. Conclusion: As changes occur before manuscript publication of coloproctology surgery meeting abstracts, caution should be exercised in referencing abstracts or altering surgical practices based on abstracts content. (AU)

Artefact Profiling: Panomics Approaches for Understanding the Materiality of Written Artefacts.

This review explains the strategies behind genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, metallomics and isotopolomics approaches and their applicability to written artefacts. The respective sub-chapters give an insight into the analytical procedure and the conclusions drawn from such analyses. A distinction is made between information that can be obtained from the materials used in the respective manuscript and meta-information that cannot be obtained from the manuscript itself, but from residues of organisms such as bacteria or the authors and readers. In addition, various sampling techniques are discussed in particular, which pose a special challenge in manuscripts. The focus is on high-resolution, non-targeted strategies that can be used to extract the maximum amount of information about ancient objects. The combination of the various omics disciplines (panomics) especially offers potential added value in terms of the best possible interpretations of the data received. The information obtained can be used to understand the production of ancient artefacts, to gain impressions of former living conditions, to prove their authenticity, to assess whether there is a toxic hazard in handling the manuscripts, and to be able to determine appropriate measures for their conservation and restoration.

Submitting a Manuscript to a Scientific Journal.

This review guides prospective authors through the necessary steps to submit a paper to a scientific journal. The journey to publication begins with selecting a journal to submit the manuscript. Considerations when choosing a journal include appropriateness, determining whether a given journal is an ethical and high-quality publication, measurements of journal ranking or impact, and other factors such as associated author costs or high rejection rates. The importance of reading and following the author guidelines is highlighted because they outline the journal's overarching editorial policies and scope of publication, and provide journal-specific instructions for manuscript preparation. Strategies for successful submission as well as common pitfalls to avoid are shared, with specific tips applicable to submitting a paper to Respiratory Care Finally, insights into what the editor wants may guide authors as they seek publication.

Using computed tomography to recover hidden medieval fragments beneath early modern leather bindings, first results.

Medieval bindings fragments have become increasingly interesting to Humanities researchers as sources for the textual and material history of medieval Europeans. Later book binders used these discarded and repurposed pieces of earlier medieval manuscripts to reinforce the structures of other manuscripts and printed books. That many of these fragments are contained within and obscured by decorative bindings that cannot be dismantled ethically has limited their discovery and description. Although previous attempts to recover these texts using IRT and MA-XRF scanning have been successful, the extensive time required to scan a single book, and the need to modify or create specialized IRT or MA-XRF equipment for this method are drawbacks. Our research proposes and tests the capabilities of medical CT scanning technologies (commonly available at research university medical schools) for making visible and legible these fragments hidden under leather bindings. Our research team identified three sixteenth-century printed codices in our university libraries that were evidently bound in tawed leather by one workshop. The damaged cover of one of these three had revealed medieval manuscript fragments on the book spine; this codex served as a control for testing the other two volumes to see if they, too, contain fragments. The use of a medical CT scanner proved successful in visualizing interior book-spine structures and some letterforms, but not all of the text was made visible. The partial success of CT-scanning points to the value of further experimentation, given the relatively wide availability of medical imaging technologies, with their potential for short, non-destructive, 3D imaging times.

Diseño y validación de una rúbrica analítica para evaluar manuscritos científicos / Design and validation of an analytical rubric for evaluating scientific manuscripts

Introducción: La investigación científica tiende a ser presentada mediante reportes escritos, que inicialmente son denominados manuscritos, la revisión de su calidad es importante en el marco del rigor metodológico y científico. Objetivo: Diseñar y validar una rúbrica analítica para evaluar manuscritos científicos. Material y Métodos: Estudio instrumental. Donde se elabora una rúbrica analítica compuesta por 21 aspectos integrados en seis dimensiones y cuatro niveles de desempeño (Excelente, Bien, Regular, Por mejorar). Se utiliza la metodología de jueces expertos (n= 9), fiabilidad mediante el Alfa de Krippendorff (α) y relación prueba criterio externo e información cualitativa para la mejora de los indicadores. Resultados: El juicio de expertos indicó que los 21 aspectos a evaluar pueden ser considerados validos (V de Aiken ≥ 0.70) y fiables (α ≥ 0.70). Además, las sugerencias de los expertos permitieron mejoras cualitativas al instrumento. La aplicación piloto con un grupo de siete evaluadores indicó que la prueba cuenta con poder predictivo, porque se encontró que las puntuaciones de los jueces disminuyen mientras disminuye la calidad del manuscrito seleccionado. Conclusiones: La rúbrica analítica elaborada es un instrumento válido y fiable que puede ser utilizado para la valoración de manuscritos científicos en el ámbito de la educación médica. El proceso metodológico brinda evidencias solidas de su funcionamiento. A pesar de eso, se anima a continuar revisando el instrumento como parte de su proceso de mejora continua.

Introduction: Scientific research tends to be presented through written reports, which are initially called manuscripts. The review of their quality is important in the framework of methodological and scientific rigor. Objective: To design and validate an analytical rubric to evaluate scientific manuscripts. Material and Methods: Instrumental study. An analytical rubric composed of 21 aspects integrated into six dimensions and four performance levels (excellent, good, fair, to be improved) was developed. The methodology of expert judges (n = 9), reliability by means of Krippendorff's alpha (α), external criterion test, and qualitative information for the improvement of the indicators were used. Results: The expert judgment indicated that the 21 aspects to be evaluated can be considered valid (Aiken's V ≥ 0.70) and dependable (α ≥ 0.70). In addition, the experts' suggestions allowed qualitative improvements to the instrument. The pilot application with a group of seven evaluators indicated that the test has predictive power because it was found that the judges' scores decreased as the quality of the selected manuscript decreased. Conclusions: The analytical rubric elaborated is a valid and reliable instrument that can be used for the assessment of scientific manuscripts in the field of medical education. The methodological process provides solid evidence of its performance. Nevertheless, it is encouraged to continue revising the instrument as part of its continuous improvement process.

Does peer review improve the statistical content of manuscripts? A study on 27 467 submissions to four journals.

Improving the methodological rigour and the quality of data analysis in manuscripts submitted to journals is key to ensure the validity of scientific claims. However, there is scant knowledge of how manuscripts change throughout the review process in academic journals. Here, we examined 27 467 manuscripts submitted to four journals from the Royal Society (2006-2017) and analysed the effect of peer review on the amount of statistical content of manuscripts, i.e. one of the most important aspects to assess the methodological rigour of manuscripts. We found that manuscripts with both initial low or high levels of statistical content increased their statistical content during peer review. The availability of guidelines on statistics in the review forms of journals was associated with an initial similarity of statistical content of manuscripts but did not have any relevant implications on manuscript change during peer review. We found that when reports were more concentrated on statistical content, there was a higher probability that these manuscripts were eventually rejected by editors.

[Comparison of the four pairs of "phleps" in ancient Greek medicine and the eleven "mai" in Mawangdui silk manuscripts].

Using the philological method, the comparison was conducted between the internal canals of human body, meaning the four pairs of "phleps" in the ancient Greek medicine, and the eleven "mai" (meridians, vessels, channels) of Mawangdui silk manuscripts. It is believed that they refer to the initial understanding on the connecting passages of the human body in Western medicine and Chinese medicine respectively. Although they have their own unique characteristics, there are many similarities in running courses, related indications, diagnosis and treatment, as well as theoretic foundation. Both of them represent the duality of tangible blood vessels and intangible pathways, reflecting the common cognitive mode of human body and diseases in early human medicine, with the similar characteristics, e.g.analogy, examining the exterior to deduce the conditions in the interior, holistic connection and natural balance. The four pairs of "phleps" of ancient Greek medicine, with the preliminary features of meridians, were substituted by the blood circulation theory afterwards; whereas, the eleven "mai" of Mawangdui silk manuscripts were developed into a twelve-meridian system. These different evolution paths and outcomes may be associated with the distinct medical philosophies and cultural backgrounds between ancient Greek medicine and Chinese medicine. This summary provides a new approach and new perspectives for the study on the regularity of the early human medical origin, especially the origin of meridians.

Insufficient reporting of experimental variables as a cause for nonreproducibility in animal physiology? A case study.

Nonreproducibility in scientific investigations has been explained by inadequately reporting methodology, honest error, and even misconduct. We hypothesized that, within the field of animal physiology, the most parsimonious explanation for nonreproducibility is inadequate reporting of key methodological details. We further hypothesized that implementation of relatively recently released reporting guidelines has positively impacted journal article quality, as measured by completeness of the methodology descriptions. We analyzed 84 research articles published in five primarily organismal animal physiology journals in 2008-2010 (generally before current guidelines) and 2018-2020. Compliance for reporting 34 variables referring to biology, experiments, and data collection was assessed. Reporting compliance was just ∼61% in 2008-2010, rising only slightly to 67.5% for 2018-2020. Only 21% of the reported variables showed significant differences across the period from 2008-2020. We conclude that, despite attempts by societies and journals to promote greater reporting compliance, such efforts have so far been relatively unsuccessful in the field of animal physiology.

Evaluation of the quality and subsequent performance of manuscripts rejected by Clinical Rheumatology: a research report.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the quality and performance of manuscripts previously rejected by a rheumatology-focused journal. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, audit-type, exploratory study of manuscripts submitted to Clinical Rheumatology (CLRH) and rejected by one associate editor in 2019. We used a 36-item quality assessment instrument (5-point ordinal scale, 1 being worst). Performance variables included whether a rejected manuscript was published in another PubMed-listed journal, impact factor of the publishing journal (Scimago), number of citations (Web of Science), and social media attention (Altmetrics). Exploratory variables included authors' past publications, use of reporting guidelines, and text structure. Exploratory variables were assessed using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: In total, 165 manuscripts were rejected. Reporting guidelines were used in only five (4%) manuscripts. The mean overall quality rating was 2.48 ± 0.73, with 54% of manuscripts rated 2; 40-80% were rated < 3 on crucial items. Over a 26-month follow-up, 79 (48%) rejected manuscripts were published in other journals, mostly with lower impact factors; 70% of these had at least one citation, compared with 90.5% for manuscripts published in CLRH. Altmetrics was significantly lower for manuscripts published elsewhere than for those published in CLRH. As for text structure, the methods and results sections were shorter and the discussion longer than suggested. The corresponding authors' past experience and text structure were not associated with quality or acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: Research report quality is an area for improvement, mainly for items critical to explaining the research and findings. The use of reporting guidelines should be encouraged by journals. Key Points • The quality of research reports (in rejected manuscripts) is insufficient. • Guidelines for reporting are seldom used in rejected manuscripts. • A manuscript rejected by Clinical Rheumatology may subsequently be published in another journal with a lower impact factor and have fewer citations and less social media attention than accepted manuscripts.

Digital Hebrew Paleography: Script Types and Modes.

Paleography is the study of ancient and medieval handwriting. It is essential for understanding, authenticating, and dating historical texts. Across many archives and libraries, many handwritten manuscripts are yet to be classified. Human experts can process a limited number of manuscripts; therefore, there is a need for an automatic tool for script type classification. In this study, we utilize a deep-learning methodology to classify medieval Hebrew manuscripts into 14 classes based on their script style and mode. Hebrew paleography recognizes six regional styles and three graphical modes of scripts. We experiment with several input image representations and network architectures to determine the appropriate ones and explore several approaches for script classification. We obtained the highest accuracy using hierarchical classification approach. At the first level, the regional style of the script is classified. Then, the patch is passed to the corresponding model at the second level to determine the graphical mode. In addition, we explore the use of soft labels to define a value we call squareness value that indicates the squareness/cursiveness of the script. We show how the graphical mode labels can be redefined using the squareness value. This redefinition increases the classification accuracy significantly. Finally, we show that the automatic classification is on-par with a human expert paleographer.

Fourteen Crutches for Mediocrity. The logismoi that jeopardize good research and publication.

Publications are used widely as a measure of academic quality. Many investigators have difficulty publishing in this competitive field. After coming across a religious lecture on the "Fourteen Crutches for Mediocrity", our team adapted this approach to life to the science of publishing: (1) what is the problem of doing it?; (2) there are worse!; (3) everybody does it!; (4) why exaggerate?; (5) I will do it tomorrow!; (6) maybe if …; (7) it is not used anymore!; (8) be a cousin not a brother!; (9) I need to be thanked!; (10) don't eat your own head, let it be!; (11) I can't possibly accomplish it!; (12) I don't feel like doing it!; (13) I am fed up!; (14) I am not worthwhile! These crutches jeopardize good research and thoughtful learned publications.

Fourteen Crutches for Mediocrity. The logismoi that jeopardize good research and publication

Publications are used widely as a measure of academic quality. Many investigators have difficulty publishing in this competitive field. After coming across a religious lecture on the “Fourteen Crutches for Mediocrity”, our team adapted this approach to life to the science of publishing: (1) what is the problem of doing it?; (2) there are worse!; (3) everybody does it!; (4) why exaggerate?; (5) I will do it tomorrow!; (6) maybe if …; (7) it is not used anymore!; (8) be a cousin not a brother!; (9) I need to be thanked!; (10) don’t eat your own head, let it be!; (11) I can’t possibly accomplish it!; (12) I don’t feel like doing it!; (13) I am fed up!; (14) I am not worthwhile! These crutches jeopardize good research and thoughtful learned publications (AU)

Las publicaciones se utilizan ampliamente como una medida para cualidad académica. Investigadores menos experimentados tiene dificultades para publicar en este campo competitivo. Nuestro equipo adaptó una conferencia religiosa sobre «Catorce muletillas para la mediocridad» al tema de la escritura científica: 1) ¿Qué hay de malo? 2) ¡Los hay peores! 3) ¡Lo hacen todos! 4) ¡Sin exagerar! 5) ¡Mañana! 6) ¡Ojalá! 7) ¡Es que ya no se lleva! 8) ¡Hay que ser hermanos, pero no primos! 9) Para lo que te lo van a agradecer… 10) ¡No te comas la cabeza, déjate llevar! 11) ¡No puedo lograrlo! 12) ¡No me apetece! 13) ¡Estoy harto! 14) ¡Yo no valgo! Logismoi es un término griego que describe pensamientos agresivos o tentadores. Las muletillas presentadas pueden poner en peligro una buena investigación y publicación

Estudio de una ptosis ocular en un manuscrito iluminado del siglo XIII / Study of an ocular ptosis in a 13th century illuminated manuscript

Introducción: El hallazgo de una ptosis palpebral en un manuscrito del siglo xiii plantea el diagnóstico diferencial de lesión del tercer par craneal. Este nervio no fue diferenciado de los otros oculomotores hasta el s. xvi. En el s. xix se estableció una correlación clinicopatológica con su parálisis. Objetivo: Describir las características y diagnósticos diferenciales de una ptosis palpebral ilustrada en el Libro de las obras divinas (1173) de Hildegarda de Bingen. Desarrollo: En la obra en cuestión se retrata a la monja Richardis de Stade con su párpado izquierdo caído. Se describen dos signos notorios, ptosis y elevación de la ceja correspondiente, y se infiere la desviación del ojo hacia abajo y afuera por la forma que le imprime al párpado la posición del ojo y la curvatura de la córnea. El cuadro es consistente con una parálisis aislada del motor ocular común. Se discuten las causas de ptosis: aponeurótica por dehiscencia del levator palpebrae; miógenas, congénitas y adquiridas; de la unión neuromuscular; y neuropática, que es la más probable en este caso y de mecanismo compresivo. Conclusiones: El retrato de Richardis de Stade muestra una parálisis del motor ocular común siglos antes de que se conocieran su anatomía, función y expresión clinicopatológica. Su inesperada muerte de causa natural hace presumir la ruptura de un aneurisma cerebral. El mérito de esta descripción original debe concedérsele a Hildegarda, cuya vocación médica ha sido largamente reconocida.(AU)

Introduction: The finding of an eyelid ptosis in a manuscript of the xiii century raises the differential diagnosis of injury to the third cranial nerve. This nerve was not differentiated from the other oculomotors until the xvi century and only in the xix century a clinicopathological correlation was established for its paralysis. Aim: Describe the characteristics and differential diagnoses of an eyelid ptosis illustrated in the Book of Divine Works (1173) by Hildegard of Bingen. Development: In the mentioned work the nun Richardis of Stade is portrayed with her left eyelid drooping. Two conspicuous signs are described, ptosis and corresponding raising of the eyebrow. The deviation of the eye downward and outward is inferred from the shape that adopts the eyelid by the position of the eye and the curvature of the cornea. The picture is consistent with an isolated paralysis of the oculomotor nerve. The causes of ptosis are discussed: aponeurotic due to levator palpebrae dehiscence; myogenic, congenital and acquired; of the neuromuscular junction, and neuropathic, the latter being the most probable in this case and of a compressive mechanism. The nun’s unexpected natural death suggests a ruptured brain aneurysm. Conclusions: Richardis of Stade’s portrait shows an oculomotor paralysis centuries before its anatomy, function, and clinicopathological expression were known. Credit for this original description must go to Hildegard, whose medical vocation has long been recognized.(AU)